Shaftoe

Ok. But I suppose you know you'll have to hotfix it anyway. That's where we come out - to look for the bugs you 4 couldn't possibly find on your own in what little time you have. So, if there will be some issues, we'll understand.

You misunderstood. I named a line of ships that I'd like to see. Then I said Warrior and Trento are too old for my taste. I don't have a special interest to them the same way I do to other older ships (which I haven't mentioned), only one of which is the Omaha class.

I hope so, too. But for now, it'd be grand to just get the v5 sooner. Lol.

So what? I gave a pretty wide spectrum of more modern ships. Omaha may be old, but it has a special place in my heart (love-hate relationship) that Trento and Warrior don't have.

I would have preferred Omaha, Emden (new)/Koln/Nurnberg, Leander/Emerald and Kirov. Warrior and Trento are just way too old for my taste.

Ah ah ah! Not so fast. The game will be more balanced when they finally release v5. You know, any moment now... any moment.

Heavy, but not Super Heavy?

Come on, Nick. We're ready.

Everybody looks at Nick

Welp, boys. Today is the day - alpha 5 is supposed to be rolled out some time very soon. Unless there are some unannounced delays, of course...

Yes. There are reasons for using different powders. They all have different stats (advantages and disadvantages) and costs. You can see each powder's stats by hovering your mouse over it during selection. Pick whichever suits you best. For example, TNT/High TNT is good if you like to spam HE shells. And if you know you're going to rely on AP shells, then consider tube powder. Perhaps you'd like to take a more flexible approach, by selecting something more universal - with weaker bonuses, but improving both HEs and APs. Also, while some powders only have advantages, other may have disadvantages - you should always consider that, too.

There is nothing like satisfaction from a ranging shot that hits and damages the target.

Wow. Think you can make words any larger? I am sure then Devs will finally get how serious you are about it.

I wonder why "Trento" and "Warrior" got special treatment. Hopefully, there will be more special hull designs later. I want hulls to build USN Omaha-class CLs.

I wonder how upcomig changes will reflect on "All or Nothing" armor scheme, which is unreliable, if not outright (somewhat) dangerous to use right now.

If that is indeed the case, then damage mechanics should be corrected accordingly (delayed). However, until that happens, in my opinion - torpedoes should cause ammunition detonations on ships with weak torpedo protection, in order to bring the general state of the game closer to real consequences of such damage.

Yeah, that's one of many pieces of evidence. And some still say (outside of this case) "torpedoes don't explode magazines, ur ignorant!", lol.

American treaty cruisers were super vulnerable to torpedoes because of their narrow hulls, thin armor and underwater ammo storages.

Also, destroyers and light cruisers often didn't have good torpedo protection. In fact, by placing ammo storages under water line designers often made ships more vulnerable to torpedoes.

Wow, that's a very insightful reply, @Nick Thomadis, thank you!

If numbers you named are accurate, then that's no bueno at all. To put it mildly, that definitely should be fixed, pronto. Because... excuse me my French, but that's just bullsh-t! What possible brand of "realism" is that!?

That is IF there won't be any delays. I sure hope it will be delivered on Monday. I really want to use those new hulls...

I must say, I totally expected to find some picture showing new stuff there, like the one with the Hood last patch. I guess I'm just spoiled. Lol.

Right now it's pretty random. Turret aims, fires, reloads, and the cycle continues. In my opinion, there definitely should be options to choose different firing sequences.